Why are there no human apes alive today?

So I'll sum up the evolutionists argument "We have no clue, but still that proves ...it all evolved."

Suck this up......"Creationism, like naturalism, can be scientific, in that it is compatible with the scientific method of discovery. These two concepts are not, however, sciences in and of themselves, because both views include aspects that are not considered scientific in the normal sense. Neither creationism nor naturalism is falsifiable; that is, there is no experiment that could conclusively disprove either one. Neither one is predictive; they do not generate or enhance the ability to predict an outcome. Solely on the basis of these two points, we see that there is no logical reason to consider one more scientifically valid than the other."

TOE is zombie science, there never were any mid ape-human species, and that is why there are no hairy apey people here today.

I do not need to con the audience. Your science has done this for me. I have already stated that the creation uses a science that we are yet to comprehend. We are talking about a spirit being which far beyond our current comprehension. You have enough trouble explaining what we see here and now......Some here are so used to convoluted theories that you expect a similarly convoluted complicated model on exhibition for creation. We do not have to have the nonsense of ancestry going back to a bacteria or several, depending on which evo model you like. Remember LUCA is dead with the realisation of HGT.4066-‘APPIt does not matter that evo scientists refute creation research because they refute each other anyway! (apart from 'it all evolved')Is there evidence for a young world? - ChristianAnswers.NetIf kinds were created all we need is evidence of dating, which we have.Evidence of creative days, which we have eg Cambrian explosionAll our scientists need to work out where the fossils reside in the creation of kinds, how many kinds and varieties therein were created. The difference is the assumptions made, interpretation of the evidence and working out what actually is evidence as opposed to theoretical assertions.Ok let's talk about luck now. You have not bothered to refute even the few examples I provided.The earths position in space, it's iron core, the very reasons why earth has life and no other planet in our solar system has so much as a bacteria to report. We are very lucky, despite all the meanderings of whether or not there is life elsewhere. You have not found it.Evolution, genetic drift, catastrophes no longer seen as driving speciation,http://www.evolutionisdead.com/quotes.php?QID=100What about stomalites that were meant to oxygenate the earth. These are made with the assistance of bacteria. So life was already here and now you have to woffle on about how life not only poofed into existence, it also did so in an deoxygenated world.Do you choose to challenge the obvious because you have exhausted your defenses? LUCK played an important role in our being here and many or your researchers agree with me and NOT you. Go figure.....I am obviously not the least educated here in your own science. However many here appear totally ignorant to the various creationists stances."If evolutionists have learned anything from a detailed analysis of evolution, it is the lesson that the origin of new taxa is largely a chance event. Ninety-nine out of 100 newly arising species probably became extinct without giving rise to descendant taxa. And the characteristic of any new taxon is to a large extent determined by such chance factors as the genetic composition of the founding population, the special internal structure of its genotype, and the physical as well as biotic environment that supplies the selection forces of the new species population."http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/...Evolution_by_Accident.htmlAre you now going to assert that these evolutionary researchers that speak to the importance of luck are all fools and idiots, also?WE ARE LUCKY TO BE HERE........I WIN!

"When an evolutionist sees a new hominid in the fossil record (such as australopithecine) he or she is more likely to give it a subjective title such as "the ancestor of humans", while the creationist calls it by what it really is -- an extinct ape-like creature. Most evolutionary changes supposedly occurred over hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years, and the evolutionist would expect there to be hundreds or thousands of intermediate forms between kinds. This just isn't the case. For example with human evolution, to go from the ape-like australopithecines to modern humans, there are only a handful of supposed intermediate forms (these are Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and archaic Homo sapiens). Few evolutionist propaganda is as humorous as the charts (trees) supposedly showing the paths of evolution; the only things shown as definite are the leaves, with a bunch of question marks and uncertain speculative paths connecting in between. "

Actually the point being that the research was trying to explain why parsinomy is not so important. Meaning...IT IS IMPORTANT.

The how, when, where and why of TOE remain up for grabs by any imaginative headline seeker to provide todays 'common knowledge' and flavour of the month.

You love to strain asides.

The Creation model is better supported by the evidence than TOE is.

It is more parsinomous with the data, whether parsinomy is required or not."God did it" is just as scientifically robust as saying "It all evolved".

Lazy you say.

I have already shown how little you know about the fossil record ...

Oh I see no paper of explanation of your recent embarrassment re the rise of life and man being lucky, nor genetic drift. All you have is circlular asides.

Why do you not refute the evidence I provided to refute genetic similarity as being necessarily connected to deep ancestry?

There are plenty of cambrian and precambrian eg stomolites, jellyfish still here today.

So the creationists stance is the stronger as it does not need complicated assumptions.

Now you explain why something like Neanderthal, with a bigger brain than us, went extinct? Why did all the other millions of side species in last 5 million years all go extinct? This is your problem.

Yes I have heard of 'PROBABLY out competed'.Now your statement re Neanderthal says modern decendants "were PROBABLY instrumental in the demise of Neanderthal".Creationists do not need 'probably'.

It goes back to the way you think. Is man an accident, pond scum, a product of chance or an intricately formed, intelligent, responsible, purposely made creature?

* falsehoods and gibberish snipped *Neanderthal, as such did not disappear. * falsehoods and gibberish snipped *

It is only the ignorant that calls the support for TOE a science.

Evolution boils down to chance which is not very scientific, nor predictive.

Despite the passionate desires and efforts of many highly qualified people over many decades to find real real evidence of ape men the hard scientific facts are clearly against the existence of such.

Notice this quote from Science Digest May 1982 p. 44 : " Modern apes seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans-of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings-is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter".

Regarding the impressive pictures, documentaries etc that the public are subjected to I find this quote revealing from the book The Biology of Race 1971 p. 135,171 : "The flesh and hair on such reconstructions have to be filled in by resorting to the imagination. Skin colour; the colour, form, and distribution of the hair; the form of the features; and the aspect of the face -of these characteristics we know absoulutely nothing for any prehistoric men".

I find it disturbing that our 21st. Century scientists seem increasingly unaware that human evolution is still highly speculative.

Biology of Race? 1971? Are you from Stormfront?

Neanderthal supposedly had a receeding chin as some people have today. If he didn't he isn't human either.

"The most interesting thing about these finds," paleontologist Peter Andrews Peter Andrews may refer to:Peter Andrews (mathematician), American mathematician
Peter Andrews (agricultural pioneer), Australian environmentalistof the British Museum British Museum, the national repository in London for treasures in science and art. Located in the Bloomsbury section of the city, it has departments of antiquities, prints and drawings, coins and medals, and ethnography. in London told SCIENCE NEWS, "is that they show the number of hominoid species during the Miocene to have been rather greater than was previously known." It is not clear how the new hominoids fit into the evolutionary scheme, adds Andrews; answering this "key question" requires a closer examination of the remains, particularly the structure of the jaws and tooth enamel.Nevertheless, say the Leakeys, when compared with other fossil hominoids, the fossils represent two distinct genera. The larger, baboon-size ape was dubbed Afropithecus, and the slightly smaller ape was named Turkanapithecus.Afropithecus, explain the researchers, displays the characteristics of a variety of hominoids combined in a single, distinctive category. Its palate is shallow, long and narrow and the nasal passage is "remarkably narrow and high." The forehead inclines steeply to a long muzzle. The size of the canine teeth of the best-preserved specimen suggests that it was a male.Another 17-million-year-old east African hominoid recently discovered by Richard Leakey and Alan Walker of Johns Hopkins University Johns Hopkins University, mainly at Baltimore, Md. Johns Hopkins in 1867 had a group of his associates incorporated as the trustees of a university and a hospital, endowing each with $3.5 million. Daniel C. in Baltimore (SN: 12/7/85, p.360) is also a representative of Afropithecus, according to the investigators. Leakey and Walker originally assigned the find to another genus, Sivapithecus. There are two controversial lines of thought about Sivapithecus: Some scientists argue that it was an early African ape and human ancestor that migrated to Asia, while others contend it developed along a separate family line that led to Asian orangutans.The new finds do not resolve this conflict, but the Leakeys now believe that Sivapithecus was restricted to Asia. They hold, however, that ancestral forms of this group first appeared in Africa.The second new hominoid, Turkanapithecus, is short-faced with a narrow palate and tooth rows converging toward the back. Little is known about the cranial cranial /cranial/ (-al)
1. pertaining to the cranium.2. toward the head end of the body; a synonym of superior in humans and other bipeds.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------cranial
adj. features of small-bodied Miocene apes, but the teeth of Turkanapithecus clearly separate it from other hominoid categories, say the researchers.Fossil finds diversify ancient apes. - Free Online Library

You know I am starting to think not even neaderthal was human. I am starting to think that Neanderthal was just an ape ...

Still the question remains as to why none of these 'not quite human' species are not still about today.

Evolutionists say there are many sister type species that have survived but none have from inbetween the chimp and human split. Seeing the large and obvious differences in the two a species in the mddle would have been excellent support for evolution.

You lot still can't agree on the human chimp split time, 4-8mya and counting, nor the neanderthal common ancestor split time. Your researchers cannot agree on hardly anything past 'it all evolved'.

You call this stuff evidence. I call it myth.

Myths change with time and so does your theory.

This is not real science and takes as much faith to swallow as any other faith.

The thread is why are there no human-ape intermediates. The truth is simply that you do not know. Guesses are not evidence in this world nor any other.

Rather the FACT is there are none about and that, like it or not, supports creation.

They are excuses made up to cover what anyone would reasonably expect to be the case.

There are none..and the reason there are none about is that there never were any.